RSN Fundraising Banner
FB Share
Email This Page
add comment
read more of todays top articles

Intro: "Gay marriage, Israel, choice - talk is rife of a 2012 primary challenge to Obama from the left, but liberals' support, and fear of GOP extremism mean it won't happen."

President Obama talks about the ongoing budget negotiations in the briefing room of the White House. (photo: Pablo Martinez Monsivais/AP)
President Obama talks about the ongoing budget negotiations in the briefing room of the White House. (photo: Pablo Martinez Monsivais/AP)

go to original article your social media marketing partner


A note of caution regarding our comment sections:

For months a stream of media reports have warned of coordinated propaganda efforts targeting political websites based in the U.S., particularly in the run-up to the 2016 presidential election.

We too were alarmed at the patterns we were, and still are, seeing. It is clear that the provocateurs are far more savvy, disciplined, and purposeful than anything we have ever experienced before.

It is also clear that we still have elements of the same activity in our article discussion forums at this time.

We have hosted and encouraged reader expression since the turn of the century. The comments of our readers are the most vibrant, best-used interactive feature at Reader Supported News. Accordingly, we are strongly resistant to interrupting those services.

It is, however, important to note that in all likelihood hardened operatives are attempting to shape the dialog our community seeks to engage in.

Adapt and overcome.

Marc Ash
Founder, Reader Supported News

+32 # Saberoff 2011-07-27 22:30
BS! This guy is full of it.


I see no problem, whatsoever, with a Primary Election opponent. And you can bet I'd work hard for a Bernie; a Kucinich, a Feingold, a Grayson, a..
+20 # brianf 2011-07-28 08:30
So would I, and I'd give a worthwhile candidate money too.

You are so right that this guy is full of it. The comments here are just a small part of the proof that us "privates" are extremely disappointed with Obama.
+24 # Jeff Chambers 2011-07-28 08:57
I agree, Saberoff. And I'd seriously question that contrived 10 percent unemployment number for starters. While Obama might realistically pick up some new support from independents who fear the extreme Right, he is losing life-long Democratic supporters like me (the old Democratic base). Bernie Sanders is the true incarnation of what Obama promised to be. I would bet my deteriorating VA benefits that if Senator Sanders were to make a run for the presidency in the Democratic Primary or as a Green Party candidate, he would really stir things up. He represents so very much that Obama and the Democrats have abandoned in their efforts to maintain an open pipeline of corporate money and influence.
+21 # Observer 47 2011-07-28 09:12
AMEN, Saberoff!!! Absolutely! If this guy thinks Obama's base still supports him, he's going to be really surprised next year!
+18 # DD 2011-07-28 11:18
Whether or not there is a primary opponent, Obama won't get my vote in the general election in November. If I lived in a purple state, and the candidate was a Bachman, I might force myself to vote Obama. I don't. And as it is, he won't get my vote for the popular election count, he won't get more of my money, and I won't be working for him at election time. I think that last one is the key. His despised "base" comprised a lot of the people making phone calls and going door to door. I hope for his sake that the corporations he caters to give him enough money to pay people to do what the grassroots gave him from the heart in 2008.
+9 # billy bob 2011-07-28 16:08
His despised base are the people his administration refered to as "the professional left" once the election was over.
+9 # Rita Walpole Ague 2011-07-28 12:48
Hi Saberoff: What a beautiful, hopefilled dream: a ticket with Kucinich for Pres. and Feingold or Grayson for V.P. with a written pledge to appoint Bernie Sanders head of the Dept. of Justice (DOJ).

I'd love to see Bernie run for Pres. on an Independent or Green Party ticket, but think the reality is that it would simply open the mass election fraud door for the Kochsucking Tea Party crowd. And, without a doubt, the last thing we enslaved sheeple need is more.....

Bushwhacking/Kochsucking/Oh Bomb Ah'ing.
+29 # tedrey 2011-07-27 22:39
It is true that the presidency is probably safe from any primary challenge for Obama. But we must ensure that the primaries for all other offices should have a true progressive challenger. And no progressive should sit out those primaries. Every progressive we can get elected helps us out of this trap we're caught in . . . and that is true whether you view Obama as sincerely trying, cravenly succumbing, or secretly sabotaging. At the election itself, vote progressive, green, or democrat, but don't sit it out.
+19 # AML 2011-07-28 07:36
Don't sit it out is right, tedrey! At the least we can make changes down-ballot. Wisconsin will be the first proving ground to make the turn-over and oust the wacky right. Obama responds to pressure no matter where it comes from. It's one of his flaws that we need to turn to our advantage.

Unfortunately, unless there is a third party (tbagger, indie) we can't gamble on primarying him out.

This is by far the most interesting election cycle I've witnessed, but we also need to make sure there is no voting machine hijinx.
+14 # Observer 47 2011-07-28 09:18
And how would you "make sure there is no voting machine hijinx", AML? We just got the proof about the hacking of the election in Ohio in 2004. Nothing has been done since then to change the system.
+3 # AML 2011-07-29 13:25
I have been asking how to avoid election fraud in WI, since the Kloppenburg election revealed all that skullduggery. Paper ballots is all I can come up with, and even though they were messed with, stricter monitoring should be put in place.
+4 # Regina 2011-07-29 18:23
And watch the registration hijinx as well. WI is generating the most egregious hijinx, photo ids at DMV offices that will be closed in neighborhoods likely to be "blue."
+10 # Observer 47 2011-07-28 09:16
I devoutly hope you're wrong, tedrey. I don't want to see Obama in office four more years. You say a Republican would be worse? How? Obama just tried to hand the Rethugs everything they've been working for since the New Deal. I hope with all my heart that the left comes up with a good Obama alternative. Bernie Sanders, for one.
+33 # Texan 4 Peace 2011-07-27 22:39
Maybe, but I'm one of the "privates" and I'm royally pissed off, and so are many of my fellows here among the hustings. I live in Texas, so it doesn't really matter if I vote Democrat. All the more reason to vote my conscience, which means write-in.
The point to be taken from Alterman's dispiriting piece is that organizing, not elections, is the only thing that's going to pull this country out of the gutter.
+22 # brianf 2011-07-28 08:38
I'm glad you understand the electoral system, because 95% of liberals don't. I live in California and know many people who thought McKinney (Green Party candidate) was much better than Obama but were too afraid to vote for her. Even after I explained to them they were throwing their votes away, since Obama had no chance of losing California, they still were too afraid to vote for the person they wanted most. This is another reason the debate keeps shifting right-ward.
+11 # psychomom 2011-07-28 09:48
I think you're right on, Texan 4 Peace. Your idea of a write-in vote is fantastic! I do not relish the idea of holding my nose while I vote for Obama, the Republican Lite candidate.
+17 # tomo 2011-07-27 22:53
Eric is right, of course, that Republicans are crazy. I say it without anger. One should be no readier to argue with them or criticize them than one would be with inmates in an asylum. And, as Eric says, we KNOW this. What I don't agree with Eric on is that this obliges us to support Obama--a more duplicitous politician than LBJ. Johnson had the good taste to step down after his first election to the presidency. He got a nudge from Eugene McCarthy and another from Robert Kennedy. Obama has led us into a murderous and criminal war in Afghanistan that has strong parallels to the murderous and criminal war that LBJ sponsored. If we don't care about this, it must be because we don't really think that mere Afghans matter much. Democrats once had the guts to respond to this kind of cruelty. If we can't respond today it means there's been some pretty revolting slippage.
+18 # AngryMan 2011-07-27 23:15
Polls always seem to ask questions to which the answers I would provide are not present. When my honest answer would be "none of the above reflect my views" and that is not an offered choice, what can be inferred from answers I provide? I bet a lot of dissatisfied progressives could make the same complaint. If true, then Obama's ratings amongst some segments of society are simply fantasy.

A future vote for Obama from me is by no means guaranteed. Right now, the odds are about 2 in 5 at best. I am supremely disappointed in his performance thus far. And no, I wouldn't vote for any Republican. The real question is centered on whether I would vote at all. I do not like the idea of voting for the lesser of two evils In that case, one is still voting for "evil". Have we really sunk to the depths that do not permit a person of integrity to be a candidate? The answer, sadly, is quite apparent.
+16 # Patricia Chang 2011-07-27 23:19
I worked long and hard for Obama and donated money to his campaign. I will not be voting for him in 2012. There are thousands like me. Vietnam tanked Johnson's numbers; and he had to step down. If the jobless rate keeps increasing; if Obama makes cuts to Social Security and Medicare, dont be so quick to say he is safe. His numbers could plummet. People are as angry with him as they are with the demented Republicans. They just can't think outside the box, to demand another candidate, and show him the door. The condition of our country is getting worse not better. The buck does stop with Obama. I refuse to give up hope that he will falter significantly; and we will be rid of him, because he has harmed so many with his smoke and mirrors.
+8 # Observer 47 2011-07-28 09:23
Oh, well said, Patricia!! Bravo!
+2 # brenda 2011-07-27 23:30
Ha ha ha. Did you see Daily and Colbert on the Wednesday nights shows. It's amazing how a corrupt news media can manage to fool many people. It's just like the pied piper is drawing them out of their "town". And oh yes, how religion, or lack of, is immediately sucked into the argument. Then you see the far far left liberals and the way far right , (what, Dictator's?), come almost to verbal bare knuckle fighting and just short of killing someone, well for a little bit that is. At least once a year someone manages to take things into their confused head, and go way over the line. Think about it. "Right" now the wealthy force is more about greed and power, than about an American harmonies and non-prejudiced people, getting their chance at the pie.
+13 # Rick Levy 2011-07-27 23:49
"Jews are said to be kvetching too, though it is really only the machers in the professional Jewish organizations and the big donors who are evincing any genuine unhappiness."

I hardly qualify as a macher. I'm a retiree on social security and I would heartily a support a challenger to Obama, who I feel betrayed his base. I'm not just kvetching. I'm furious.
+29 # Jorge 2011-07-28 00:04
Don't count on no opposition to Obama for the 2012 Dem nomination. His right-wing policies are driving this country further into the Bush ditch. "Liberal elites"?? You mean us working- class folks still struggling while the uber-rich get more tax cuts, we pay for endless wars while losing teachers and police, and now BO is offering up Social Security as a sacrifice to his Wall Street masters? Remember challenger Gene McCarthy who challenged war-monger Lyndon Johnson, forcing Johnson to not run? Bobby Kennedy also ran in 1968 but was shot down and we ended up with Nixon, but at least Nixon finally ended another disastrous war (Viet Nam). As Norman Goldman said, Obama is more conservative than Reagan (and Nixon). A true Progressive could challenge and beat Obama.
+4 # maddave 2011-07-28 07:51
OK, Jorge, I agree with you, but would you offer up a name of a viable potential candidate who may (could!) pick up the challenge? The primaries are rapidly approaching and Obama has hundreds of millions of dollars in his war chest and is heavy into the fray . . . while no true liberal is even even peeking over the parapet, much less getting sweaty or sitting on a (nearly) insurmountable campaign fund lead.

Everybody here says "somebody" ought to oppose Obama, and maybe that's so . . . but get serious about it. Come up with a name - or names - of someone we can all support, otherwise get off of your asses and begin to support Obama! He ain't perfect, but for liberal/progres sive purposes he beats the socks off of any-and-every-b ody in sight.
+16 # Observer 47 2011-07-28 09:31
"For liberal/progres sive purposes"??? WHAT liberal/progres sive purposes? Endless war? An exponentially bloated MIC? Continued torture and rendition? More money for the wealthy? Offshore profits for corporations? More bonuses for Wall Street? More destruction of the environment by the oil companies? Imprisonment without trial of whistle blowers? Those aren't any of the liberal purposes I support, maddave. If Bernie Sanders doesn't run, or someone of equal value doesn't appear on the scene, you can bet I'll be voting green, dave.
+12 # Jorge 2011-07-28 15:18
Ok MadD, here goes (one of these guys could take on Obama): Bobby Kennedy Jr. (I met him at Solfest, incredible fellow, exactly what we need), Bernie Sanders, Alan Grayson, Russ Feingold, Congr. John Garamendi (I have spoken with him at our Dem picnic about ending the wars), Dennis Kucinich, Barbara Boxer, Al Franken, Al Gore, Jerry Brown, Robert Reich, Paul Krugman, Elizabeth Warren, or if you want feisty or charismatic Hollywood-types (like Reagan) that could catch on, how about Keith Olberman, Baldwin, Phil Donahue, Jon Stewart, Rachel Maddow. You can poke holes in all these names or you could stick with the lesser of 2 evils again. Gene McCarthy suspected he would not win in 1968 but he had the balls to try and changed history (Johnson dropped out of the running).
+5 # X Dane 2011-07-29 22:39
Jorge. What a list!!! A lot of them are smart people, Alan Grayson is one of my favorites, and I hope Elizabeth W. will start to run for office. She would make a hell of a president. She should start by running for Scott brown's seat, to get known by more people.
I doubt Kennedy is interested. And Jerry Brown is too old.
+2 # Capn Canard 2011-07-30 11:27
Very well said, Jorge! I concur!! We need to hold Obama accountable and get some serious attention about what the horrible Bush Tax Cuts have actually done to the economy and the American Middle Class, amongst other things.
+19 # Saberoff 2011-07-28 09:21
Jorge: "A true Progressive could challenge and beat Obama."

I whole-heartedly agree with you, and we would have to work hard for this challenger (but that's what we DID FOR Obama in '08 anyway). And we would have to DEMAND that our candidate get equal access and fair treatment in the media. We could do that. We could go to the debates and take the doors off the joint. Many of us would end up in jail for the night; perhaps hundreds of dollars in fines, but.... We simply will not and can not allow the hostile takeover of our country any longer.

maddave: Progressives HAVE named names: Dennis Kucinich, Russ Feingold, Bernie Sanders, and Alan Grayson. Furthermore, we are not going to live in a democracy (Of, by, and For the People) until we get money OUT of the election process. Democrats, Progressives, campaigns, phone banks, need to STOP asking me for money to fight the Koch’s (I'm fully resigned that I can NOT win that fight!) We need to work to get money OUT of politics, not put more in. Just ask Russ.
+10 # BishopAndrew 2011-07-28 10:47
you are so spot on! we can defeat Obama and the the traitors to the Union and the Constitution called tea party people!
-5 # Susan Lamont 2011-07-28 00:17
I knew the Democrats were offering us Trojan horses - one black (Obama) and one female (Clinton). Didn't vote for him last time. Won't vote for him this time. Liberals/progre ssives are a bunch of cowards. Decisions made in fear are usually the wrong ones.
+19 # Cordier 2011-07-28 08:14
My vote for BO was not made in fear. It was made in hope.
+16 # Mara Eurich 2011-07-28 00:27
I for one ...have crumbled and this left wing nut will not be suckered again. I don't care ... anyone but this man.
-1 # maddave 2011-07-28 00:34
Alterman is correct. There is no alternative to Obama - and I wish there were! But, not giving him my vote is equivalent to giving it to one or another of that misbegotten, benighted group of misfits and (political & social) midgets put afield by the GOP.
I have old-time, liberal friends who are dead set upon withholding their support & vote from Obama, but they agree that long term liberal/progres sive progress will be radically curtailed - if nor snuffed out - if we remain on the short end of the current 5 - 4 split Supreme Court. Obama's two court appointments were stellar, but we MUST protect the seats that we have and, when either Kennedy or Scalia depart - or Thomas is impeached - we need to add one more - but neither is even conceivable under a Republican President. Consequently,re gardless of our disappointment over his appease-them-to -death approach to date, we have no choice but to stay the (Democratic) course with Obama.
Buy are you looking? Our guy looks like he may win this debt limit thing! Hope springs eternal.
+8 # brianf 2011-07-28 08:42
Whatever happened to hope? You wish there were an alternative to Obama, yet you are convinced that is not possible. It would be possible if so many people didn't believe it wasn't!
+4 # Glen 2011-07-28 09:26
Realistically, maddave is correct. Replacing a president means nothing in today's agenda. You would also have to replace all the billionaires influencing the government, corporate influence, the Pentagon, etc. How do you do that with one election? How do you erase the Project for the New American Century. If you will read it, you will see that even Obama is following that protocol.

We have entered a new era in the U.S., but most citizens have not recognized that yet.
+2 # Capn Canard 2011-07-30 11:35
Glen, there is nothing new here, and no new era in American politics. It is the same sheet but different day. The USA has always been controlled by WEALTH while the middle class is fed lies ad infinitum about democracy all in order to maintain supporting the wealthy establishment in power. The problem is that whoever is elected will be clipped, threatened, usurped, and compromised by wealth. If Sanders were elected and resisted this then we would see the ugliness up close and personal.
+1 # billy bob 2011-07-30 13:44
Anybody running for office knows what you're talking about. Some of them are ready to fight. Some of them are ready to play ball.
+5 # tomo 2011-07-29 10:11
maddave: If we look to Obama's appointments (Geithner, Summers, Gates, Petraeus, Salazar--of BP fame, etc.), they hardly seem a strong reason for wanting to hold him over for a second term. The Great Bailout and the Afghan "Surge"--both supported by people he appointed--seem particularly egregious and indefensible. Palin or Bachmann might do as bad; short of blowing up the planet, it's hard to imagine how they could do worse.

Where is it written though--other than by Alterman here--that we must choose between Obama and Bachmann?
+2 # X Dane 2011-07-29 22:48
maddave you mentioned the impeachment of Thomas, sweet the sound....How can we work on making that happen? There was so much written about his many missdeeds, before this miserable debacle srarted. Can we get that restarted?? He has to go, for there must be something in the water at the supreme court. They all get soooo old. We can't just hope he will die.
+2 # X Dane 2011-07-28 00:43
I agree with Alter, many of us are dissappointed, I am too; but I realize that Obama was in the crosshairs of the republicans from the day he set foot in The Oval Office. They could not wait to get that black man out of THEIR White House.
After all They occupied it for the better part of the last 40 years. The word occupied fits here, for they never did anything good while they were there.
They have done nothing but obstruting. WHATEVER Obama tried to do, even issues they were for, they abandoned, the minute Obama was for it. Our courts have huge backlogs because they have denied the judges, that needed confirmation in the senate. Nobody needing confirmation, have a chance. There has never been so much filibustering. They are hell-bent on destroying him. So realize what he is up against.
+18 # billy bob 2011-07-28 08:08
I agree up to a point. But then again, EVERY Democrat in the country is up against the same thing. Many of them are FIGHTING BACK! Look at Wisconsin!

The repugs would have done this to any Democratic President. True, they are worse with Obama than they were with Clinton, but then again, they get worse all the time.

Obama has three choices: He can cower, he can fight, or he can collude with them. He's chosen to cower, or collude, depending on how you look at it. He's NEVER put up a fight for ANYTHING he was elected to do, NEVER.

So, I'd GLEEFULLY replace him with ANY other (non blue-dog) Democrat - ANYBODY. This excludes blue-dog Clinton. Anyone with a shred of conviction would FIGHT BACK.
+2 # X Dane 2011-07-28 16:58
Billy bob.
If you remember, one of the things so many wanted him to do was: CHANGE THE TONE IN WASHINGTON????? ? He sure had to try. Also there are plenty of people, who, if he had been really tough, would have screamed that he was an ANGRY BLACK MAN. As the first black president, he is walking a fine line. Racism is certainly very alive in the country.
So many of the right hate him especially because he is black. It is too bad that more of our citizens refuse to acnowledge that.
+6 # billy bob 2011-07-28 19:47
Well, his tone has been complete capitulation for the past two and a half years. He's not responsible for pleasing people who'd like to see him dead, but he IS responsible for following through on campaign promises. If he'd said, "vote for me, because I won't fight", I don't think he would have been elected.
+7 # billy bob 2011-07-28 20:47
I just thought of this too.

Has constantly compromising made him "less black"? I agree about the racism. I don't agree that it would be made any worse if he actually fought back.
+12 # brianf 2011-07-28 08:50
What you say is true, but the part you leave out is that Obama has been dealing with them in exactly the wrong way, and he never learns. He always begins from a position of compromise, then has to compromise more, and no matter how much he compromises, they still oppose anything he is for. Will he EVER learn this strategy doesn't work with people like this? He keeps making the same mistakes over and over and over! At the very least, he should begin far to the left of what he thinks could get passed, so that when he compromises, he will end up where he wants to be and liberals won't have to gag when they vote for the bill. In many ways, Obama is an extremely stupid man, and a man who can't seem to learn from his mistakes.
+21 # epcraig 2011-07-28 01:30
Obama's not worried about a challenge from the left, nor need he be.
Obama must worry about his supporters not voting for him (or more likely, not voting at all in 2012).
+13 # Virginia 2011-07-28 01:41
Alterman - You are as delusional about Obama as he is himself.

Yesterday's new Washington Post/ABC News poll is more realistic:

"More than a third of Americans now believe that President Obama’s policies are hurting the economy, and confidence in his ability to create jobs is sharply eroding among his base. . . . The Post-ABC poll found that the number of liberal Democrats who strongly support Obama’s record on jobs plunged 22 points from 53 percent last year to 31 percent. The number of African Americans who believe the president's actions have helped the economy has dropped from 77 percent in October to just over half of those surveyed."

If Bernie will run - Obama might be out in the primaries. I don't know of any Dems lately that are singing great praise for the Prez.
+3 # Ralph Averill 2011-07-28 02:37
Funny, how the Republicans, in attempting to do everything they can to destroy Obama's presidency, will be the one's most responsible for his re-election. Ironic as well the fact that the party that trades in fear in all its forms has managed to unify its opposition party in fear of Republicans while the Republicans are splitting between the tea-baggers and Bible bangers and those who still maintain some kind of grip on reality.
It's all about Congress in 2012! Support your local Democratic candidates! Volunteer to get out the Democratic vote!
+15 # mediasavvy 2011-07-28 04:00
This author's thesis produces exactly the kind of attitude that makes me hate the Democratic Party leadership as much as I hate Republicans. At its heart, this 'author - really just a party pimp - presumes that no matter how devastating Democratic Party policies are to the poor and the working class, we'll cue up like good little pawns and support their crap again, I don't think so.

Everyone who holds this notion needs to look at the 2010 election. If Obama keeps peddling trickle down economics and banker-boy fiscal austerity, that last election is going to look like a dress rehearsal. I, for sure, will be writing Bernie Sanders name in for President, if the Democrats dare offer me 4 more years of their poverty-making creepy neoliberalism.

What's the difference between Democratic and Republican economic policy? Republicans want to make us all slaves and the Democrats want us to feel good about the experience.
+10 # billy bob 2011-07-28 08:16
I'm a good example of what you're talking about. 2010 was the first time in my life I didn't bother to vote, because I could tell that my vote would have made no difference.

Right now, I'd challenge Obama's team to tell me why a vote for them would be any different to a vote for romney, pawlenty, or huntsman. I can't tell the four of them apart. If one of those repugs end up the candidate against Obama, I expect a lot of hugging and telling each other what nice guys they are.

In many ways our country is in a fight for its survival, and elected office-holders who pretend that isn't the case, while the right-wing holds us hostage, isn't going to "change" that fact.

I'd vote for ANY liberal challenger. Dean would be my favorite.
+4 # markhalfmoon 2011-07-28 13:38
First you say you didn't bother to vote in 2010 because you didn't think it would make a difference. Then you complain about the right wing holding us hostage. If you and all those other people who sat out the 2010 election had voted, we probably wouldn't be even having a debate about raising rich people's taxes because the Republicans who are fighting against it would be in the minority.

The Republicans who are fighting fiercely to cut Social Security and Medicare would not even be news because their proposals would be certain to lose if you and all those others who didn't vote in 2010 had helped us keep them out of the majority.

If you don't think there would be any difference between Romney, Pawlenty, Huntsman and Obama, I have 2 words for you: Supreme Court. Think about it and honestly ask yourself: which one you'd rather had picked the last two Justices and which one you'd rather have pick the next?

Many people on the left are deluded into thinking that the voters of America are more liberal/progres sive/leftist than they really are. If Howard Dean, Bernie Sanders, Dennis Kucinich, or Cynthia McKinney were somehow able to become the opponent against the Republican candidate, Those people would be shocked out of their delusion.
+3 # billy bob 2011-07-28 16:18
I sat at home in 2010 because the Democratic Party wasn't representing the left and my candidate wasn't either. It would not have made a difference no matter what I did. I voted in every other election of my entire life. I voted for Obama in 2008. I'm still waiting for the "change I can believe in" to happen.

The repuglicans trying to end Social Security, have been trying to do the same thing since 1934. The only thing that's changed is that they're facing a President who's willing to play ball as long as he can make a compromise.

Many people on the left are the reason Obama was elected. The despised base are the ones who elected him. The middle, as usual, stayed home. The country you think isn't that far to the left, wanted single-payer. In fact, 71% of them did. Obama could have had it, if that's what he wanted. The 71% who wanted it were a clear majority and would have supported him. Who knows, they might have even voted in 2010.

The repugs won big in 2010, because the repugs know who votes: THEIR BASE. The Democrats lost big in 2010 because they were to busy trying to please the REPUGLICAN BASE.

The fact that the President isn't listening to the people who elected him isn't our fault.
+10 # Jorge 2011-07-28 15:38
Yes, Billy Bob. I left Howard Dean off my list under MadDave's comment above. Dean would be a huge improvement over BO and has guts. Thanks.
+6 # Observer 47 2011-07-28 09:37
AMEN, mediasavy! LOVE that last sentence, especially because it's 100% true!
+1 # Capn Canard 2011-07-30 11:46
LOL! We are all slaves to the monetary system. We can't live without money. Now we can gnash our teeth about that lie.
+13 # rm 2011-07-28 04:43
I disagree. Obama's base has already left him behind. He has made too many decisions that are purely neo-con. He is now -- just like Clinton was -- the best president the neo-cons could ever have. And the republicans will do for Obama just what they did for Clinton in 1996 -- put up a Bob Dole type loser candidate so that Obama can win again in 2012. It is likely that the voter turn out will be very low, as people like me simply stay home.

This would be a great time for a 3rd party to make a surge. I'd vote 3rd party just for a chance to vote against Obama. All it would take would be about 35% of the popular vote to win. This is the time for the 3rd parties out there -- Greens, libertarians, and others -- to work together and make a push.
+17 # billy bob 2011-07-28 08:20
I agree, but "libertarian"? I don't want to make things worse.

Libertarians don't even believe Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, the EPA, unions, planned parenthood, national parks, public schools, public libraries, consumer protection standards, the FCC, the USDA, etc. should EVEN EXIST. That would not be an improvement.
+11 # rf 2011-07-28 05:25
What is this Daily Beast sh*t? Every article I read that comes from them is fake progressive, pro-Democratic, pro-Obama drivel. Stop it RSN! You're getting sloppy or dishonest.
+6 # billy bob 2011-07-28 08:21
You're right about the daily beast. RSN is just showing an article. It doesn't mean they endorse it. It's just part of the national debate.
-6 # Still_Standing 2011-07-28 08:55
I agree. I was so pissed off that I cancelled my e-mail subscription to RSN. This is fascist propaganda and I don't want any part of it.
+3 # Rita Walpole Ague 2011-07-28 05:29
Guess what. Now I'm unable to pull up comments on this story, and I'll bet there are a lot of them.

DAMN A DEM. (OH BOMB AH) but VOTE FOR THEM. Sorry, no more. And this is my stand (with a Dem. Pres., Andrew Jackson, hangin' in the family tree). There are huge numbers of folks out there just like me, sick of chosing the Dem. as the lesser of two evils.

Can't trust polling (too often karlroved these days, like voting itself, so often defrauded in order to get the Kochsuckers into office).

American Revolution II, it's a comin'.
+11 # maddave 2011-07-28 09:02
[quote: "ritaague": "American Revolution II, it's a comin'."

What Americans don't realize is that we are ALREADY in a revolution, and We The People are clearly losing. Our highly prized "Democratic Way of Life" is fast disappearing, and the federal courts and Congress no longer respond to the needs of We The People. A shadow government composed of Corporate America, Big Oil, Big Health Care and our hereditary, moneyed aristocracy comprises the burgeoning plutocracy by which we are now governed.

Corporate oligarchs have two budgets. One - the capital budget - buys and meticulously maintains heavy, valuable (production) equipment. The other - the consumable budget - is for procurement of easily replaceable, expendable, use-and-throw-a way items. I submit that, with the demise of Union Power, We The (common) People who (under the unions) gained recognition as valuable, productive cogs in the American economy are rapidly being relegated to industrial and legislative dustbins throughout America - like worn out & discarded (cheap) spare parts, wiping rags, mops and bathroom tissue.

I further submit that, historically, revolutions come & go peaceably. It's in the counter revolution - when hungry & fed-up people try to regain their power - that things get messy.
+4 # X Dane 2011-07-29 02:43
maddave, then it can certainly easily be messy, for there are millions of hungry desperate people in America today It is so sad and infuriating to see people lose jobs, get sick and loose it ALL.

Families homeless. I wonder if you saw the 60 minute program with all the children who were homeless, with their families?
When people loose hope terrible things happen
-5 # lobdillj 2011-07-28 06:12
There's no point in revolting. There's no acceptable challenger.
In fact, there's no point in voting any longer. The two party system is dead.
+2 # kitster 2011-07-28 06:16
sad but true. the only reason to re-elect obama is because his opponent will be a know-nothing oaf. not because he is doing a good job. we needed an fdr after w. and we got an f. and we're passing him anyway, because?
+3 # billy bob 2011-07-28 08:23
What if the repugs put up a candidate who acts the same as Obama (i.e. NOT bachmann)?
-4 # MidwestTom 2011-07-28 06:23
According to recent reports the President has received more money from Wall Street than all of the Republicans combined. Maybe that is why he is a Repub. in Dem. clothes. A lot of his Base is oblivious to any of the problems facing this country, and therefore he is still in a very strong position. Personally I wish eith Hillary or Dennis K. would run, but there isn'e even a discussion of a potential opponent. Maybe Evan Bayh could come out of retirement.
+16 # billy bob 2011-07-28 08:29
His base are the ones angry. Haven't you read the other comments? Haven't you heard? His base is what we're talking about... unless, by "his base" you're refering to middle-of-the-r oad fence-sitters who usually don't bother to vote. They seem to be the only ones he cares about.

Also, Obama is a conservative who pretended to be liberal to get elected. Clinton doesn't bother pretending. She's an all out conservative.

You're probably right about Wall-Street, though. They want market stability. He can provide that better than a lunatic on the right. Wall-Street is probably "his base".
+12 # Jorge 2011-07-28 08:55
Evan Bayh is not retired, he is cashing in......he is a highly-paid lobbyist now (that explains his bad votes regarding health care and Big Pharma). His dad would be ashamed of him.
+3 # markhalfmoon 2011-07-28 13:44
"According to recent reports...."
From where? That doesn't sound like it is true. I will believe it when I see some independent documentation.
+11 # sark 2011-07-28 06:38
I would encourage readers and voters here to read the book VoteScam and then go to BradBlog, Mark Crispin Miller, Election Defense Alliance and HandCountedPape rBallots for more information about voting. Then maybe we can have a real discussion about elections.

As for Obama's approval rating from liberals, I think it is very, very low. It is only when Obama is compared to a hard right republican that he scores positive.
+1 # markhalfmoon 2011-07-28 13:50
Do you have documentation for that assertion about Obama's approval rating from liberals? Or is it only, as you say, that you "think it is very, very low?" And that you just think "It is only when Obama is compared to a hard right republican that he scores positive?"
+2 # sark 2011-07-28 18:57
markhalfmoon, it is what I am thinking based on my conversations with my liberal friends. Maybe I should also say that I think it takes being more that just a little left of center to be liberal/progres sive. (Again, this is just my thinking.)
But as I said, it is what I think. That is the reason I wrote "I think". If it had been more, I would have cited something as I did when I posted about voting.
+7 # billy bob 2011-07-28 20:58
This is a poll that isn't going to be conducted, because it would work against both Democrats AND Repuglicans in office.

The Democratic narrative is that he's being attacked by the far right, and no one else dislikes him. The repugnant narrative is that, he is such a left-wing socialist that everyone, BUT the far-left wants him out. Both narratives are self-serving lies, that prevent such a poll from being conducted.

Anyway, it would be a poll of "what people think". That what this is about. I personally, don't know any liberals who are happy with his performance in office. All of them WILL vote for him anyway, IF they don't get a better choice. That doesn't mean we don't DESERVE a better choice.

It's ironic that Nader finally decided not to run. This would be the first time I would have voted for him. I'd still prefer a Democrat to challenge Obama from the left.

+6 # Realist 2011-07-28 06:54
Obama will lose by default. Many Democrats will "forget" to vote for a President.
+8 # billy bob 2011-07-28 08:31
If he wins, it will also be by default. Who knows, if we default on our debt maybe we'll ALL lose by default.

I think the candidates for the next election will be:


or maybe:

+4 # sark 2011-07-28 09:08
Thanks billy bob! I needed that laugh.
And, sadly, I think you are correct.
+5 # billy bob 2011-07-28 09:26
Thank you. If those do turn out to be the choices, I may just stay home and rent KING KONG vs. GODZILLA.

They're better actors.
+9 # dkonstruction 2011-07-28 07:33
if it's true that 85% of "liberal" democrats approve of the job Obama has been doing this is one more reason why i'm not a liberal (where's Phil Ochs when we need him...we miss ya Phil).

Hopefully (and i know at this point it's still perhaps more wishful thinking) progressives will begin to learn the lessons of American History (not to mention Tahir Square) that the only time we have gotten substantive, meaningful change (even of the reformist kind) is when there is a mass movement out there that really challenges and ultimately threatens the system as a whole....Roosev elt is a case in point....he didn't campaign as a liberal reformer but came to understand that reform was necessary to save the system from those pushing for more radical changes.

Finally, though, i think Alterman misses the point of a progressive challenge in the primaries...the point is to change the terms of the debate and the conversation... e.g., there is no deficit crisis in this country there is a revenue crisis which if dealt with could mean no cuts at all....if the market isn't hiring create a giant new WPA project....if we can't employ everyone nowadays because they aren't needed given the productivity of the new technology cut the $#%*ing work week...we never should have given up after getting the 5 day 40 hour work week anyway.
+7 # billy bob 2011-07-28 20:41
I agree with you.

But, could you point out the difference between "liberal" and "progressive"?

I've asked this before and got thumbs down, but no response. Maybe it's just me, but it sounds suspiciously like conservatives made "liberal" a bad word, so, rather than fight, liberals opted to change the word to "progressive".

I'm a liberal. I'm proud of it, and I don't think liberals approve of Obama's job performance.
+5 # miu 2011-07-28 07:58
We all hoped that Obama would be another FDR. Instead he turned out to be a second-rate Hoover. You can vote for the Republican party or for the other Rep. pty aka the Dems. Heads you lose, tails you lose and the Banksters have another 4 year bonanza. No, you didn't talk me into it, Eric. Maybe the war party will get crazier before election day?
+6 # Cordier 2011-07-28 08:11
Fail. I can only speak for myself but I can tell you I will NOT vote again for BO. Perhaps we should view what is happening in WI as an example when people finally wake-up to the violence of the Republican agenda. If it takes a Tea Party sweep of the coming election, then I say in the end, it will be worth it.
+12 # mjc 2011-07-28 08:11
I certainly don't belong to Obama's "base". Didn't vote for him or McCain in 2008 but that doesn't mean I will be happy to just sit back and let him run the Democratic Party's most basic principles, concerns for social justice, voicing the Americans in the not-s0-rich groups' concerns, into the ground. Certainly do not agree that by and large there is no unhappiness with Obama amongst liberals, progressives and independents. Here's hoping there will be a move to write in, nationwide, some other Democrat's name, maybe even Dennis Kucinich. There isn't much else to do to remedy this particular problem: Obama isn't a Democrat; he's an opportunist. If he is responsible for cutting Medicare, Medicaid OR Social Security, there may be other hell to pay. I sincerely hope so.
+10 # billy bob 2011-07-28 09:30
"Obama isn't a Democrat; he's an opportunist"

I just wanted to repeat that. That was a great quote.

Opportunity and opportunISM are NOT the same thing.
+9 # VSweet 2011-07-28 08:13
What is the real point of this article? What President serving this nation SATISFIED the MAJORITY of its citizens?
Lastly, It will not matter how MANY Ballots are cast in the PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION. What Matters IS...WHO WILL BE COUNTING THE BALLOTS!

Americans will never forget the State of Florida in the Presidential election of George Bush who LOST thru ballot counting, but by a Supreme Court decision WON in the State of Florida.

Enought Said?
+16 # brianf 2011-07-28 08:27
Alterman is wrong. It's absolutely true that one of the main reasons Obama has shifted to the right is that he has no fear of a primary challenger. Someone like Kucinich should enter the primary in order to shift the debate back towards sanity. Then Obama and especially the news media won't be able to completely ignore options like single payer or like ending the wars now or like dealing with climate change seriously.

And Sanders should enter the race as an Independent so that a reasonable viewpoint can continue to be made after the primaries. Let's do what we can to make it happen!

Obama will veer wherever the wind is blowing. And I don't mean public opinion, I mean the wind from the mass media blowhards stuck in their myopic world guided by far-right talking points. Alternate, truly liberal candidates will help stabilize Obama so he doesn't lean so far right that he topples. I don't want the next election to be an endless, meaningless debate between stupid and insane. We need at least one true liberal with unshakable principles such as a respect for life, and who will refuse to compromise with wrong.
-6 # Barbara K 2011-07-28 08:30
I believe there are a lot of fake democrats posting on here, who are really republibaggers. How sneaky of them, but oh, so obvious too. Real Obama people know that when he began his campaign, the country was in much better condition then and he could have followed thru. However, as soon as the election day passed, the Bush Gang put in their plan to trash the economy, and when Obama entered the White House, the economy was crashing. He managed to stop the free-fall thru the only means available. Then the Rs have relentlessly blocked every thing he tried to do. They are still doing it. They stated more than once that their only stated goal is to make him a one term president. They are following thru on that, as they haven't done ANYTHING that would HELP US. They block, filibuster and hold the people and the country hostage so they can finish destroying our country. They lie about the debt, nearly all was acquired under the Bush adm. As for the wars, there have been votes to defund them, but the Rs vote against defunding them. They have lots of wealthy friends making a lot of money off the wars. The tbaggers hate the government and want to kill it. Wake up and see what is really happening. Do not vote and it is a vote for a tbagger. Don't be part of the problem.
+6 # billy bob 2011-07-28 09:46
I may agree with you. I may not. It kinda depends on the circumstances.

Do you think Obama is better than romney, for instance? Again, I'm not disagreeing with you. I'd like you to help me tell the difference.

Two months ago, I would have said romney is worse because he's a "moderate repugnican" candidate, and we all know what that means. George II was a "moderate" candidate as well. Like all "moderate" repugnicans, he's a trojan horse who won't disagree with the extreme right, once in office.

Then again, Obama was a "moderate to liberal" candidate. Has he shown any substantive way in which he is willing to FIGHT (not just talk tough) against the extreme right? Right now, I'm thinking romney is an extreme right-winger pretending to be moderate, and Obama is an extreme right-winger pretending to be liberal. To me, the result is the same.

If bachmann, or paul gets the repug nomination, you can COUNT ON ME TO VOTE FOR OBAMA, though.

I'm willing to be wrong about this. I hope I am.
0 # markhalfmoon 2011-07-28 14:33
Obama does not agree that Medicare should be discontinued and Social Security should be privatized. Republicans do.

He would appoint a liberal or a centrist Justice to the Supreme Court as he has twice before rather than the right wing ideologues Republicans are fond of appointing.

He will sign the "Dream Act." Republicans won't.

He will sign the bill repealing DOMA. Republicans won't.

He ended DADT. Republicans will try to reverse it.

He will continue to wind down US involvement in Iraq and Afghanistan. Republicans will increase it.

He has and will continue to sign nuclear disarmament treaties. Republicans are against that.
+7 # billy bob 2011-07-28 17:18
"Obama does not agree that Medicare should be discontinued and Social Security should be privatized."

The repug bills in Congress won't end Medicare OR Social Security. They'll drastically CUT them. Obama seems pretty willing to make that compromise. Are you?
-3 # X Dane 2011-07-28 20:56
I am Billy bob. and I am a senior getting S S. I am not rich, just middle class, but if needed I would be willing to take on some costs, so that poor people, who ONLY have S S will not see cuts. I am not a saint, but I am also rational and PRAGMATICI am lucky I am healthy and don't take ANY medication, so my HMO is making money on me.
+5 # billy bob 2011-07-28 22:26
You're lucky that you don't rely on ever cent you receive from Social Security and that you don't take any medication for now. I wish I could say the same for my Mom.
0 # X Dane 2011-07-29 17:47
billy bob, that is WHY I am willing to forego some, and I am wondering why THAT is seen as negative? I know S S is solvent FOR NOW, but considering how many seniors are retiring and how MANY FEWER workers there will be to pay into it.

Also considering, that too many jobs are low wage, and with all the cuts being made to education, we are unfortunately not seeing a lot of geniuses taking over???

Changes CERTAINLY WILL be made. For that reason I think it is really important that we discuss, WHAT those changes should be before the repubs start in on S S with a BIG AXE.
It is important to be PROACTIVE, not reactive.
I am almost 78, so I COULD say, what the hell do I care?? That was not lady like,
LIVE with it. Well I care for I think of my children and yours and the country I love in spite of all the crap happening right now. I have all my marbels and THEN some, so I try to make a difference for good, where I can.
+2 # billy bob 2011-07-29 21:14
You're willing to forego some cuts to the Social Security of the rich? Or you're willing to forego some cuts to Social Security? This isn't about you. This is about the millions of OTHER people who RELY on the Social Security check they're getting RIGHT NOW, and CAN'T TAKE any more cuts. Are you willing to forego cuts to the money THEY rely on to survive? I'm not.
+4 # X Dane 2011-07-30 16:56
Billy bob. I obviously wasn't clear.
I think, well to do people should pay more, so cuts will not be made to people, who relies on S S alone. S S should not be cut. OK was that clear enough??? And I NEVER thought it was.
about me.

Unfortunately a lot of people do not understand, that S S has nothing to do with the current economic problems, because the republicans WANTS them to believe it has.
I sure hope this cleared it up??
+2 # billy bob 2011-07-30 18:26
It did. I agree completely. Sorry for the misunderstandin g.
+4 # X Dane 2011-07-30 21:54
I am glad it did billy bob for we need to understand each other. The republicans have gone TOTALLY off the deep end. Their hatred is unbelivable. We are on the edge of destruction, not just for our country, but the economy for most of the world is so fragile, and they don't give damn. They just want to destroy the democrats and Obama. They really are traitors.

Unfortunately vay too many do not understand what they are doing. They don't see, that the republicans don't want to win.

-2 # markhalfmoon 2011-07-28 14:33
He has gone further than any previous US president in standing up to Israel and demanding they recognize 1967 borders. Republicans unconditionally support whatever Israel does.

He is downgrading US involvement in UN operations in Libya. Republicans believe the US should lead the project with troops on the ground.

He allows US aid to countries and NGOs regardless if they provide abortions. Republicans would reverse that.

He raised fuel economy standards to 54.5mpg by 2025. Republicans would allow less than 45mpg.

He signed the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act against wage discrimination for women. Republicans were against it.

He lifted the ban against stem cell research. Republicans would reinstate it.

Is there really no difference?
+7 # Observer 47 2011-07-28 09:51
I'm not a republibagger, Barbara. I'm an independent, but I support what USED TO BE the Democratic principles, as opposed to Rethug insanity. And just what do "real Obama people" consist of? People who vote Dem no matter what? People who watch Obama throw the country to the Rethug wolves and still support him? You're making excuses for someone who has turned out to be a bought and paid-for Wall Street shill. Obamma is the republibagger in Dem clothing!
+7 # X Dane 2011-07-28 21:20
Observer, you don't seem to understand that ALL OUR POLITICIANS ARE BOUGHT AND PAID FOR. Until we realize that only when we DEMAND publicly funded elections will things change. Our system is TOTALLY CORRUPT. When you take money to get elected, you OWE the giver.
Our citizens don't understand that we will greatly benefit when ALL private and corporate money is gone from elections, and the policians are answerable TO US. We could throw them out, if they are not doing a good job.
That is difficult now because thy have their paymasters to keep them in office, because they are serving THEM.
+4 # billy bob 2011-07-29 14:37
I agree 100%. I just want you to know that so you realize we're really on the same side. We just disagree about strategy. I don't even completely disagree with you about that. The Great Compromiser and Chief has put us in a terrible position.
+3 # X Dane 2011-07-29 18:01
Yes billy bob, we ARE on the same side. and I DO understand all the frustration and anger. I also wish and think Obama should show some muscle. It is frankly hard for me to see why he is not saying.

"OK. I have tried my utmost to work with people, who obviously do NOT want to work with me, so it will not be the highway. IT WILL BE MY WAY!!"

I think you would hear such a scream of approval, that you would be half deaf.
+5 # billy bob 2011-07-29 21:17
That's EXACTLY how I feel. But, until he feels a little pressure FROM OUR SIDE, I don't think he will do that. The fact that we're displeased with his job performance isn't doing the trick. He doesn't seem to care. If we put up a serious challenge for him that was TO HIS LEFT, he might suddenly see what's at stake and do something about it.
+4 # X Dane 2011-07-28 20:24
Barbera, I am glad that everyone is not hating Obama. Which of course is what the republicans have been working on from day one.
Their aim is ALWAYS to devide and conquor, and they usually win because democrats don't know that you need to STAY TOGETHER in order to win. You may have problems and you may have setbacks, but you need to keep your eye on "the prize".
Republicans are great at campaigning. They STAY FOCUSED....they win, and then we are all in deep do do for they can not govern, and they don't care. all they want is to enrich the people paying them

billy bob do you think Romney would be better??? He doesn't even have the courage to stand and defend the one good thing he did as governor. He is the ultimate flip flopper. He has changed position so many times he must be dizzy.
In business he did not CREATE JOBS HE KILLED JOBS.
+3 # billy bob 2011-07-29 14:44
No, I think romney would be worse. After looking into it, I think he'd be MUCH worse. I just don't think the President we elected is bothering to listen to us, and I want the Democratic Party to learn a lesson. I believe that a serious challenge from the left (NOT the right), especially from another Democrat in the primaries is exactly what the doctor is ordering for this disease.

I wanted Obama LONG BEFORE any of the other Democratic candidates dropped off in the 2008 primaries. He's the FIRST Democratic nominee that is exactly who I would have picked out of the entire field that was running - EVER. I was so proud that the person I thought was best for the job, ACTUALLY GOT THE NOMINATION FOR A CHANGE. I certainly didn't want Clinton until he was the nominee anyway.

Then Obama took office and I've felt like a dupe ever since. If I had a time machine I wouldn't just laugh Kucinich off the stage. He's so small you could fit him in your pocket and he doesn't look or act like a fighter, but he has more fight in him than Obama will ever have. If he, or Feingold, or Dean, or even unknowns like Carl Levin and Barbara Lee ran against Obama in the next primary, I'd fight tooth and nail to get them the nomination. ANY of them would win over the teapublican candidate.
-2 # X Dane 2011-07-28 20:46
and billy bob, before the election Fareed Zakaria, wrote an article about Obama in which he said." So many say that Obama is a wild eyed liberal. He is not, he is first and foremost PRAGMATIC." If more of our people had paid attention before the election. They would have known what to expect.

Many good laws have been passed. Look it up. And I think Obama wants to do more in a second term, when he doesn't
have to worry about re-electiom.

As Fareed said, he is patient calm and PRAGMATIC.
Also the people who do not realize that changes NEED to be made to Social Security. and Medicare, are not paying attention. I know Social Security is solvent now; but with all the baby boomers getting old and needing it, and living MUCH longer than before, we HAVE to make changes. We need to talk about WHICH CHANGES.

To learn something and understand, look up Ronald Brownstein's informative article: Going gray, plus a lot of red.
+6 # billy bob 2011-07-28 22:30
One MAJOR change to Social Security that I'd be willing to accept would be for the amount the federal government has borrowed from it to be PAID BACK IN FULL WITH INTEREST. From what I understand the amount owed is in the hundreds of billions. To me, that's a lot of money.

I'd also be willing to accept getting rid of the cap on how much income you pay Social Security on. Currently, Social Security doesn't affect the paychecks of the rich much. I'd be glad to see that change.
+2 # billy bob 2011-07-29 14:52
Pragmatism isn't about being pasionless, calculating, and willing to compromise on your core principles. It's about ACTUALLY WINNING.

Candidate Obama said he wanted to close Guantanamo. He could have. Candidate Obama said he believed in single-payer. He could have had it. Candidate Obama said he wanted to get out of Iraq. He could have.

A repuglican Congress couldn't have stopped ANY of those things, without suffering electoral consequences that would have furthered OBAMA'S agenda. What's worse is that he didn't even HAVE a repugnant Congress when he took office. He had a FILIBUSTER-PROO F MAJORITY. He squandered it.

That was NOT "pragmatic". It was counter-productive.

Believe it or not, people just SAY they want cooperation and bipartisanship in Washington. THEY DON'T. They want PASION and RESULTS. If they got those things, Obama's approval rating would be back where it was when he took office and he'd be able to get more of the liberal agenda he's avoided pushed through Congress. THAT would have been the "pragmatic" approach.
0 # X Dane 2011-07-29 23:58
OK billy bob I think I would like to sit down and actually TALK with you and many others here. I also wanted Obama to win from the very beginning, but I didn't think he had a chance. But billy bob I think you and many others PROJECTED ONTO HIM WHAT THEY HOPED FOR. Not what he IS. As I mentionrd earlier, not just Fareed Zakaria said, he is NOT a wild-eyed liberal. First and foremost pragmatist

And you are wrong...sorry for being so blunt...He could NOT close Guantanamo. When he said it was going to happen, The republicans IMMEDIATELY said NO you can not bring them to ANY prison on mainland USA. They cut the funds. He didn't have a chance. please look it up billy bob. He definitely DID TRY.
+1 # billy bob 2011-07-30 08:44
There are executive orders. bush used them. Obama won't. He only asks for cooperation because he's unwilling to stick his neck out about anything.

I agree that the fact he couldn't get HIS OWN party's "blue-dog" repugnicans to cooperate with him is a big part of the problem. He has the bully pulpit for a reason. repugnants know how to force the hand of their own rank and file. For Obama, that would be too confrontational.

I'm not "projecting" that Obama said he wanted single payer. He SAID IT, in no uncertain terms. He didn't even TRY IT, once the opportunity came.

I'm not "projecting" that candidate Obama said we'd be out of Iraq. He SAID IT, in no uncertain terms. The regnant minority of Congress, or even the current majority, couldn't stop him if they tried. What could they do? Cut off funding for NOT FUNDING a "war" we're not in anymore? It's his decision to get out. Not theirs. HE'S THE COMMANDER AND CHIEF.

The problem is that he doesn't WANT TO, and the only conclusion I can draw about the fact that he said HE WOULD do those things when he was a candidate is that he was lying.

By the way, is it REALLY possible that such a brilliant man "didn't know" repugnants would fight him about everything? When we're told how brilliant he is, I tend to believe it.

You make him out to be an idiot.
+2 # mjc 2011-07-29 09:13
Whatever "real Obama people know" is pretty sparse. The country was not in better condition than it is now. This depression began in housing market at the end of 2007. The Bush disciples from Wall St began issuing money to those companies, TARP funds, months before Obama took office. Obama was happy to follow their lead, and appointed Geithner and Summers to his Cabinet, friends of Wall St. Our President is still caving in to the right wingers, even the Teas who want no government or the least possible.
+3 # tomo 2011-07-29 16:41
Barbara: You seem intent on prolonging the myth that Obama started out well, and then the bad Republicans got in his way. This is shabby analysis. He started out bad. Look at his appointments. Who appointed the non-tax paying son of Goldman-Sachs our Secretary of the Treasury? Who kept on the Bush-appointed Gates as Secretary of Defense. Who appointed BP's bed-partner as Secretary of the Interior (and protector of the Gulf of Mexico)? Who moved over Bush-appointed Petraeus so that Petraeus could do unto Afghanistan what he had already done unto Iraq? If you really think this guy was brought down by Republicans well, how do you like the Golden Gate Bridge? It just so happens that I exclusively own the deed to it, and I am willing to make it available to you at a very reasonable price.
+1 # Still_Standing 2011-07-28 08:34
I am completely disgusted that RSN opted to publish this story. It certainly doesn't represent my attitude nor that of anyone I know. We've had it with this putrid president and plan to either vote Third Party or not vote for the top of the ticket in 2012.

I don't see how any progressive could cast a vote for such a cowardly, clearly pro-corporate rat. I think the Left must do anything and everything to see to it that Obama does not get a second term.
+11 # PA Davis 2011-07-28 08:47
I won't guess what the rest of Obama's liberal base will do. I can only say I will not work for or vote for Obama. He does not represent anything that I believe in.

and I won't engage in the self defeating political chess game of voting for Obama because the Republicans are worse.

If there is no third party, I won't vote at all

Then when Obama continues on his anti-environmen t, pro-war, anti-civil rights, pro-business agenda I won't feel like s..t for having voted for him.
-2 # M_Esche 2011-07-28 09:34
You know, way too many people said "Yay, he's president! He'll take care of all our ills! We don't have to vote to support Democrats in 2010, and we don't really have to keep after our congress people to keep them at least somewhat honest.Obama can't do it all, by himself, or with a small group. If we want something to happen, we need to be there to make it happen . . . .
+8 # Linda Anderson 2011-07-28 12:17
Quoting M_Esche:
You know, way too many people said "Yay, he's president! He'll take care of all our ills! We don't have to vote to support Democrats in 2010, and we don't really have to keep after our congress people to keep them at least somewhat honest.Obama can't do it all, by himself, or with a small group. If we want something to happen, we need to be there to make it happen . . . .

As a Canadian observer and part of the minority radical left portion of Canadian voters, I am extremely interested in this conversation.
I too think that Obama needs to be challenged so that left wing, socialist (meaning actually caring about the social fabric of the country) views become part of the debates.
However, if it's Obama or ANY Republican, don't abandon the field to the GOP!
One never knows how a second term Obama might strengthen!
+8 # billy bob 2011-07-28 19:58
The people who were the most excited about him becoming President weren't just fence sitters. We were willing to help in any way we could to fight the battles that were coming from the right.

The problem is, that we were labelled "the professional left" and told that everything we wanted (e.g. an end to torture, single-payer, an end to Iraq, to keep our Social Security, etc.) were "off the table" and "dead on arrival" for a "lack of support". The support that got him elected, wasn't enough support to get him to actually act on his campaign promises.

A 71% approval for single-payer is a pretty strong endorsement. The trouble is that, the President we elected, decided to side with the other 29%, against us.

mccain said he didn't care if we left troops in the Middle-East for the next 1,000 years. It was one of the most damning quotes that lost him the election. Obama didn't say that. It seems like he was thinking it all along, though.

The first time I REALLY started to take Obama seriously, was during one of the Democratic debates when he was, from what I could tell, the ONLY one to speak up and say that the U.S. is not a country that should be engaged in torture, and that if elected, he would make it one of his first priorities to close the torture camps.

I'm still waiting for that to happen.
+8 # drush 2011-07-28 09:39
If Obama would run as a republican this mess could be better resolved. He is Trojan hope.
Like Clinton the left is lulled while the republican agenda is expanded. Yes beat then to the punch. Knock ourselves down first.
The discussion is really over. So is the election according to Alterman (other man)).
The Dems need the other Person. or for sure it is time for a 3rd Party.
For sure the time is now.
+3 # tcatt57 2011-07-28 09:41
KMA Obama, F'in traitor to the people constitution and your oath of office. Both party's are accomplices in murder & treason in the US and abroad we have proof and plenty of prison space for both party's. We have the manpower to drag you all kicking and screaming, because that's how cowards go down!
+10 # Ryan Langemeyer 2011-07-28 10:08
I also completely agree with Saber and the other reply comments. Either Alterman is a plant from the Obama camp, or he is reading the tea leaves in his cup completely wrong. Obama is GWB on steroids.

However, I could be completely wrong here, about "liberal" support for Obama. The Sheeple appear to have been so dumbed down and fearful of, well, just about everything, that they may just "goose step" right into the voting booth and, once again, vote against their own interests.
+5 # rofo47 2011-07-28 10:13
Someone asked if a Republican could be any worse. I am disappointed as anyone in president Obama but you ask if a Republican could be worse. I have one response: 3 possible Supreme Court appointments. With 7 of 9 judges appointed by these radical conservatives, what chance would we have to live in a country envisioned by our founders? Just think of 3 more fools like Roberts, Thomas, Scalia and Alito... my head is already hurting at this thought.
+8 # Still_Standing 2011-07-28 10:27
If the Dems had any guts, they could block any Supreme Court appointment they chose to. I do NOT see this as being a valid reason for voting for Obama or to reward his perfidy. If dumping this bum results in a Bachmann in the White House, so be it. I can't think of anything that would rally progressives more than that possibility. Keep in mind that the trashy fascist justices are all there with the cooperation of the Dems. If the Dems had stood together in opposition, there would be no Alito or Roberts.
+5 # Bob Griffin 2011-07-28 14:54
I still remember 1980. I still remember "Carter, Reagan, what's the difference." And we've been paying for that for 30 years.
+7 # billy bob 2011-07-28 20:12
There was a STRONG difference between the two. Reagan could NEVER be accused of being too moderate or not listening to his base. He didn't get elected or re-elected by appealing to the left. He got in office by energizing his base, telling them what they wanted to hear, and then, crazy as it sounds... ACTING ON IT, when in office.

Democrats saw that and made ALL OF THE WRONG conclusions about it. Instead of the country becoming further right-wing. The voters of one party were given someone they actually wanted.

Instead of moving further to the right to try and decieve voters about who the REAL conservatives were, the Democratic Party should have offered a CHOICE. Instead of running away from the word "liberal" and every other word that Newt Gingrich decided to attack, the Democratic Party should have embraced their own ideals and shouted BACK, at the so-called "silent majority" that can never seem to shut up, even when it's a minority.

Reagan may have been the 2nd worst president in U.S. history and an incredible liar to the press, but he gave his base EXACTLY what they voted for, and they made sure to keep voting.

Reagan encouraged right-wing lunatics to become excited. Obama (like Clinton before him) has encouraged left-wing apathy, but those first few days he was in office were pretty thrilling.
+17 # sanfrass 2011-07-28 10:16
If the "Truth in Advertising" laws were to be applied to presidential candidates, Obama would be forced to run as a Republican, and most of the Republican hopefuls out there would be forced to run as Fascists.
+2 # billy bob 2011-07-28 17:16
Do truth in advertizing laws still even apply to advertizing? There has been so much deregulation in recent years that I've lost track of what consumer protections still exist.
-4 # RealisticsPM 2011-07-28 10:46
To you above - sounds like - left-of-Obama complainers: Who else could you'all nominate and elect in '12. Would you go to the "right" of him.

I say that he is being as strategic as he can given the congress that we all elected.

The problem is some - I say to many - middle income class voters are politically leaning to supporting the "above 250-k$" class - for some - maybe misguided - reason. What's your reason?

In this "below 250-k$" class we want to hold onto the "liberal" benefits of all of the past human history but side with the "above 250-k$" on the next liberalization issues.
+8 # davidhp 2011-07-28 11:41
I already revolted and registered as a Socialist - I will not vote for these spinless tools of the corporate robber baron democrats who sell out working class people day in and day out. Democrats or Republicans in power and the working class still loose. Until the corporate sponsors of the two party system in American are stripped of their power by the PEOPLE and a people's government America will just become a feudal state with the corporate owners in charge and workers as serfs with the lacky politicians taking handouts from the wealthy.
+4 # Still_Standing 2011-07-28 11:58
+3 # Mary Ann Maikish 2011-07-28 13:09
If all the "baby boomers" both right and left--due to the President's and the Democrats" willingness to once again dip into the SS/medicare trust fund and in addition cut it were to join with the supports both left and right for gay marriage and all the supports of Israel, supporters of a woman's right to choose; This block could pick and get elected an Independent for President--and tell the Republicans, Tea Partiers and Democrats were to go!!!!!!
+8 # bracero 2011-07-28 15:30
Once more the so called "DEMOCRATS" have choked when the chips are down. They again expect us to follow them down the "Yellow Brick Road" by default not because they have won any victories. DON'T COUNT ON IT.
Fool me once shame on you. Fool me twice shame on me. Just count me a no show come election in 2012 unless some one else who can keep their word shows up to represent me both in the Congress and the Executive Banches. I am tired of hearing promises of help and then watching the support flow to the wealthy.
Three years without a COLA in social security while prices continue to rise in staples and other goods. Result in three years of net loss to the elderly.
Taxes remain frozen for the wealthy for eleven years. The wealthy have also not had a return to their prior tax base in eleven years. Result, eleven years of net gain to the wealthy.
This is simply wrong and any idiot can see it. Who is being crushed here Mr. Democrat? Mr. and Mrs. middle income. Your so called political base. Your middle income base ends up supporting the political base of the Republican Party. How out of kilter is that Mr. Democrat?
You deserted us pure and simple. We don't show come election time. End of discussion. Its called Tit for Tat.
+9 # chizables 2011-07-28 17:27
I am a lifelong Democrat who worked for Obama, but I will not be voting for him in 2012. He is not the man he pretended to be in 2008. I had hoped he would stand tall and fight against our wars and for our poor. Was I ever wrong! Instead he escalates the wars and now wants to cut Medicare and Social Security and has done nothing in defense of the unions. I will never, ever vote for Obama again! He is spineless and wimpy and only cares about his re-election.
+3 # foxtrottango 2011-07-28 21:17
I agree with most of you on this posts. I, too, feel betrayed, not so much by Obama as by his advisors and administrators and the rank and file congressional democrats whom I consider cowards for not confronting the Republicans for what they are, racists, bigots, liars, corporate bought crooks and traitors to the US Constitution.

It seem that once the votes were counted Obama's administrators and advisor turn to the corporatists once more. The fact that his spoke person, Gibbs, infuriated the progressives of the Democratic Party denouncing our agendas and by which he lost his position only means that I might not vote for Obama if someone like Bernie, Kucinich or Grayson runs! We need people with guts who will tell the Republicans and the right wing conservative and the entire GOP what they really are, traitors to our democracy!

The facts are, most of us worked hard, I am a country precinct chairman and worked my butt off to have him elected because the nation needed hope and he than fit the bill, so he said. But now I feel he is just nothing but an opportunist and play games with our votes.

Unless no one runs against him in the Democratic Party, I might have to vote for him again, but I will do so relunctly and because I hate Bachmann, Rick Perry, and anyone else that decides to run in the Republican Party.
+4 # futhark 2011-07-29 05:19
The only thing worse than voting for a loser is to vote for a winner that you are going to wish later that you had voted against. Otherwise we'll be stuck forever with the Plutocrats offering us just two "choices" (really echoes) as long as people are too cowed to vote for the candidates and policies in which they really believe. The future is in our hands. Keep voting for the lesser evil and you'll keep getting evil.
+2 # charsjcca 2011-07-29 09:27
The Obama base knows of neither liberty nor egalitarianism. They are warm and comfy with this sinking ship.
+3 # Gary Fridell 2011-07-29 14:07
Check out Obama's policies and appointments these past 2 1/2 years. His allegiances are to Wall Street, the military, and corporate America. He has done NOTHING for progressives. I voted for Obama in 2008; I will NEVER vote for that man again, Republican crazies or not. It is not just the elites who are enraged at his performance. Let us make this Chicago con-man a one-term president.
+3 # mtnview 2011-07-29 16:57
Its called 'Street Cred' and Obama no longer has any street cred with the progressives who worked for his campaign. Alterman is wrong. There will be a third party candidate, and this is where progressive votes go, if only to demonstrate to the democratic money machine that votes walk, when the talk is false. We know who Obama works for, and it is not progressives.
+3 # lark3650 2011-07-29 18:47
There is a difference between a politician and a statesman. A politician will do everything he can to get the people to do something for him. A statesman will do everything he can to do something for the people. Bernie Sanders is a statesman. Dennis Kucinich is a statesman. Russ Feingold was a statesman.....i n today's government they are few and far between.... :O(
+2 # Carbonman1950 2011-07-30 22:08
It seems to me likely that Obama will overcome any challenge from the left and be the Democratic presidential candidate, BUT that does not mean there should not be a challenge. During this first term Obama has proven himself to be more "conservative" than Barry Goldwater, so a substantial kick in the butt from his, perhaps, former supporters on the left could prove efficacious.

Not only to Mr. Obama himself, but it might well also serve to remind the leadership of and the office holders in the Democratic Party that the party has reneged on the contract with its members to be the more or less LIBERAL party. We do not expect the Democratic Party to be a truly progressive party, but we are disgusted and angry that the party has become the far right arm of the even more far right Republican Party.

FDR told his supporters "now make me do it". We must make Obama act on the principles he told us were his during his campaign for president. Every president faces many many pressures. It could well be useful if one of those pressures were pressure from his supporters to actually do what they elected him to do.
+2 # billy bob 2011-07-31 20:34
+2 # peterjkraus 2011-08-01 07:50
After the newest cave-in on the budget "deal" that was his to win, I refuse to vote for Obama or for any Democrat again. And don´t tell me how bad the other option is -- I have voted Democrat for 30 years straight, and look where it got me.

THE NEW STREAMLINED RSN LOGIN PROCESS: Register once, then login and you are ready to comment. All you need is a Username and a Password of your choosing and you are free to comment whenever you like! Welcome to the Reader Supported News community.